What do you think? Good idea/bad idea?

[Alg]

Pinched from another forum:
This was written by a rig worker in the North Sea - He makes a lot of sense!

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that salary, I work on a rig for a drilling contractor. I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their aris drinking beer and smoking dope.
Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get benefits?"

What do you think?

[Tag]

I think it would be the start of a very slippery slope.

We live in a society that has seen state interference in individuals personal lives grow massively over the last thirty years, we don't need to be encouraging the Government to interfere further.

Where would it stop.  Dope testing for benefits?  We have already had debates on whether the NHS should be treating obese patients and others will illnesses caused by so-called lifestyle choices.

Besides, stopping benefits people who drink / smoke / druggies wouldn't save society money.  All it would do is see crimes such as burglary, fencing, mugging and assault increase....  Taxes wouldn't go down just because the Government would pay less in benefits, but hospital and policing costs would rise - and insurance premiums rocket further.

The rig workers arguement is ridiculous:  Airline pilots need aviation certificates, surgeons and dentists have medical degrees, engineers, solicitors and accountants all have to belong to professional organisations.  They all pay tax - do those on benefits need all these qualifications too?!

If the rig worker doesn't want to take a urine test, he needs to get a different job.   

[Monica Reyes]

This was posted on another forum I frequent and I presumed then it was originally of American hands as it said ass where you have put aris.

I said then that this is a time when so many people will be claiming benefits through job losses, why demonise them simply because of circumstance?



Why also assume that all benefit claiments are druggies and abusers of substances? it is offensive to think so.Offensive and wrong.

Yet again its easy to pick on the weak or unfortunate, and I wish it would stop.Yet again benefit claiments are demonised.

[Bob De'Bilda]

I don't know if this oil rig workers story is true or not. But what i think the post is trying to say is persons that are receiving benefits should be tested (not urine ) to make sure the benefit payouts are going to the persons who genuinely need it.

I don't necessarily agree with this as I am sure benefit claimants are pretty well examined. Although the government has said it wants to reduce the number of claimants, so maybe the tests are not as stringent as they should be.

There are of course the few who abuse, and seem to get away with false claims and these are the persons who the oil rig workers post is aimed at. And these are the ones who give all claimants ( in some peoples eyes) a bad reputation.

[Yokel]

The bloke on the oil rig doesnt have to pass his drugs test to earn it for claimants - he has to pass his drugs test so that he is safe - and insured - to work on an oil rig.

People who occasionally smoke a bit of weed generally have normal day jobs like the rest of us.

The testing process would be both laborious and expensive.  And of course open to challenge on each reading which is even more expensive.

People with a serious drug problem both claim benefits (at our cost) and commit a lot of crime (at our cost).  All you would be doing is increasing the amount of crime and moving to cost to us elsewhere - but we would still be paying it. 

In  some - admittedly few but definitely worthwhile cases - people get off drugs.  Remove the benefits system and you just force them further into crime and worse addiction.

On top of which drug addiction is classified as an illness so they would simply be paid benefits from elsewhere as is their human right.   


So, its a completely bloody stupid idea from someone who hasnt really THOUGHT about what they are saying - probably a Daily mail reader.

[Soup]

Surely he has to past his test for the safety of himself / colleagues as he works in a dangerous place? What he is implying, and I'm taking this with a pinch of salt, is if he should be drugs tested, so should everyone? Nuts.

[Yokel]

Or maybe he wants to take up drugs and he's narked off cos he can't get away with it but - as he sees it - other people can.

[Ettie]

Good idea in theory, bad one in practice.

Serious drug users are in a situation which has spiralled out of their control, which eventually can lead to them losing everything.
Losing benefits would only be the tip of the iceberg, with a serious habit they would be already stealing to keep up supply, as
benefits alone would not be enough

Unfortunately, help is only immediately available to the most hopeless cases, usually at the instruction of a judge.  More, easily obtainable support  needs to accessible to individuals before things get so desperate.  People need to realise that as a lifestyle choice drugs are
a really bad one, and can easily screw your life up.

Celebrity role models hitting drugs going to an expensive rehab (unlike the general public) and bouncing back time and time again are not helping. 
More photos of the kind of squalor these people live in and the hidden damage to their bodies gives a truer picture.



Would love to see some photos of Kate Moss and her grotty ex boyfriend.  Thin beautiful model can use drugs at no cost.... Great role model NOT! 

[jamieh]

have you met her grotty ex boyfriend? It is very unfair to call someone grotty that you have never met. But maybe you have been in his company and he was very rude to you. I have spoke to him and he was very polite and quite sincere

[Monica Reyes]

Is that the Docherty bloke? he certainly looks grotty its just impression he gives, all spotty and greasy from the drugs and booze.Not forgetting the scabs on his face from time to time.
Actually, he is a GREAT role model, for kids never to touch drugs that is

I am sure he can come over as polite, but he looks grotty from his self abuse.

[jamieh]

i would say he had a very good complexion, i guess you are making the opionion from what he wears, judge a book by its cover and all that. were you not saying how you should not judge someone just because they claim benifits, are you not judging someone by the way they look

[Monica Reyes]

Its not a case of judging, its a case of knowing he is a jnkie and bears the scars of his lifestyle choice, the scabs, the spots, the gresay lank hair, in the majority of his photos.

As I said, he is possibly a polite person, but he LOOKS grotty. grotty , smelly and half dead.

Its a great thing for kids to see, they see just how being a junkie can destroy you inside and out.

I said nothing about what he wears, I made my statement purely on the awful photos and the interviews I have seen.

He is the Sid Vicous of the noughties, all addicts have that half dead skin falling apart look.Look and compare pics of the two.

He will end up the same way too, if he doesnt stop his junkie habit.

[Yokel]

Quote:  "Its not a case of judging, its a case of knowing he is a jnkie and bears the scars of his lifestyle choice, the scabs, the spots, the gresay lank hair, in the majority of his photos.

As I said, he is possibly a polite person, but he LOOKS grotty. grotty , smelly and half dead."


""bears the scars of his lifestyle choice"" - do you think this is his lifestyle choice?  Just because he does being a druggie with style - he can afford to - makes him no different in principle to a homeless heroin addict.

[Monica Reyes]

Well IMO the taking of recreational drugs is a lifestyle choice.Unless you are kidnapped and forced to take drugs at first of course, which I very much doubt happened to him.